...
首页> 外文期刊>Cardiology >Biphasic versus monophasic shock for external cardioversion of atrial flutter: a prospective, randomized trial.
【24h】

Biphasic versus monophasic shock for external cardioversion of atrial flutter: a prospective, randomized trial.

机译:双相和单相电击治疗房扑外部心脏复律:一项前瞻性,随机试验。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

BACKGROUND: External cardioversion is effective to terminate persistent atrial flutter. Biphasic shocks have been shown to be superior to monophasic shocks for ventricular defibrillation and atrial fibrillation cardioversion. The purpose of this trial was to compare the efficacy of rectilinear biphasic versus standard damped sine wave monophasic shocks in symptomatic patients with typical atrial flutter. METHODS: 135 consecutive patients were screened, 95 (70 males, mean age 62 +/- 13 years) were included. Patients were randomly assigned to a monophasic or biphasic cardioversion protocol. Forty-seven patients randomized to the monophasic protocol received sequential shocks of 100, 150, 200, 300 and 360 J. Forty-eight patients with the biphasic protocol received 50, 75, 100, 150 or 200 J. RESULTS: First-shock efficacy with 50-Joule, biphasic shocks (23/48 patients, 48%) was significantly greater than with the 100-Joule, monophasic waveform (13/47 patients, 28%, p = 0.04). The cumulative second-shock efficacy with the 50- and 75-Joule, biphasic waveform (39/48 patients, 81%) was significantly greater than with the 100- and 150-Joule, monophasic waveform (25/47 patients, 53%, p < 0.05). The cumulative efficacy for the higher energy levels showed naturally no significant difference between the two groups. The amount of the mean delivered energy was significantly lower in the biphasic group (76 +/- 39 J) compared to the monophasic one (177 +/- 78 J, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: For transthoracic cardioversion of typical atrial flutter, biphasic shocks have greater efficacy and the mean delivered current is lower than for monophasic shocks. Therefore, biphasic cardioversion with lower starting energies should be recommended.
机译:背景:外部心脏复律可有效终止持续性房扑。对于心室除颤和房颤心脏复律,已证明双相电击优于单相电击。该试验的目的是比较直线型双相和标准阻尼正弦波单相电击在有症状的典型心房扑动患者中的疗效。方法:筛选了135名连续患者,其中包括95名(70名男性,平均年龄62 +/- 13岁)。患者被随机分配到单相或双相心脏复律方案。随机分配到单相治疗方案的47例患者接受了100、150、200、300和360 J的连续电击。双相治疗方案的48位患者接受了50、75、100、150或200 J的电击。结果:首次电击疗效50焦耳双相电击(23/48例,48%)明显大于100焦耳单相电击(13/47例,28%,p = 0.04)。 50焦耳和75焦耳的双相波形(39/48例患者,占81%)的累积第二次电击疗效显着高于100焦耳和150焦耳的单相波形(25/47例患者,占53%, p <0.05)。较高能量水平的累积疗效自然显示两组之间无显着差异。与单相组(177 +/- 78 J,p <0.05)相比,双相组(76 +/- 39 J)的平均传递能量明显降低。结论:对于典型的房扑经胸心脏复律,双相电击比单相电击具有更大的疗效,平均输送电流也比单相电击低。因此,应建议使用较低的起始能量进行双相电复律。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号